Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
Can't see it being successful unless Michael Green and Sebastian Fox are now MPs.
Yup, Boris worries me. Most people don't keep up to date with politics, and their only impression of Boris will be of the persona of the daft, funny guy who is oh so easy to forgive any mistakes. He's probably the only realistic chance the Tories have of checking their slide. Rees Mogg would be absolutely fatal for them, but thankfully they don't seem to have noticed yet so might elect him anyway.
Unlike Boris, I don't think Rees-Mogg has any ambition to be PM
Or he's smart enough to conceal it and let the party lift him into the job. He wouldn't be the first.
true... though I think he is a pretty poor choice and would struggle to connect with the electorate.
that said Boris is very Divisive, David Davies will be 70- next year so who knows - they are not exactly blessed with talent at the moment (though the same is true for all parties I think)
I think this pollster was way off on the election result so might not mean much but
A few days after Jess Phillips' show with Jacob Rees-Mogg and another article lauding her friendship with Anne Milton, a nice reminder that some MPs know how to do their job.
What a ****
That is the same Esther McVile who lost a seat in the North and was parachuted into a safe one down South.
I think we're reaching the point of Tory collapse. If we assume people vote Tory because of their perceived stability and safe hands, when things are going this badly you may as well vote Labour and get the benefits.
Universal credit causes Theresa May's latest defeat in Parliament
https://www.economist.com/news/brit...ld-be-victory-economic-logic-and-common-sense
Terrible idea that as wasted millions of tax payers money
https://www.economist.com/news/brit...ld-be-victory-economic-logic-and-common-sense
Terrible idea that as wasted millions of tax payers money
Emily Thornberry from her recent interview with Owen Jones:
"The country voted to leave and respect that."
"Everything is up for grabs in the negotiations"
And she would call Boris a buffoon. HA!
If Miliband were May's potential successor, maybe, but not with Corbyn. The focus would be on policy rather than character, and Labour's duck's aren't exactly in a row there. Of course the Tory variety aren't even chicks at this point.
Speaking of which, the Government should have been aware of its weakness regarding Universal Credit and announced a postponement before the vote. Daft stubbornness.
"The country voted to leave and respect that."
"Everything is up for grabs in the negotiations"
And she would call Boris a buffoon. HA!
If Miliband were May's potential successor, maybe, but not with Corbyn. The focus would be on policy rather than character, and Labour's duck's aren't exactly in a row there. Of course the Tory variety aren't even chicks at this point.
Speaking of which, the Government should have been aware of its weakness regarding Universal Credit and announced a postponement before the vote. Daft stubbornness.
Polls really don't mean much at the moment but overall the Tories are now under 40%, unless there's a ramp up of nationalism and xenophobia it seems the Tories have reached their high point at the start of the last election and it's down hill from now on(Hopefully). Although @Nick 0208 Ldn is right, had a Milband or someone political similar being in charge of Labour then there might be a chance of another election, but because it's Corbyn, Mcdonnell and Abbott the tories will hold on as long they can.
I image the idea of John Mcdonnell being in charge of the economy terrifies the tories, which is really just another reason to vote Labour.
Humiliating defeat for the government last night over the universal credit benefits sysyem. Mrs May is almost completely out of credability at this stage, i fear we are heading closer to Bafoon Boris as PM.
The Jared O'Mara story is interesting. 15 years ago he made misogynistic and homophobic comments online. Now it was 15 years ago and his views may well have changed. It's interesting that few seem to have picked up on the fact that 15 years later he felt the need only to apologise for the misogyny. Strange how everyone seems fine with that. I thought the omission of any reference to, or apology for, the homophobia in his statement was glaring.
Turns out you can make homophobic remarks, never apologise for it, and have folk like Owen Jones jump to your defence.
Turns out you can make homophobic remarks, never apologise for it, and have folk like Owen Jones jump to your defence.
http://news.sky.com/story/conservat...ment-for-unlawful-telephone-campaign-11095928
Another election where the Tories just ignore electoral rules and nothing is done about it.
Twitter thread, he's hardly jumping in front of the bullet here.
Another election where the Tories just ignore electoral rules and nothing is done about it.
Twitter thread, he's hardly jumping in front of the bullet here.
O'Mara suspended.
Unsure exactly what this means. Any possibility of a by-election in which Clegg stands?
Unsure exactly what this means. Any possibility of a by-election in which Clegg stands?
This image pretty much sums up everything. The grim reaper robot and her two prototype models currently in power saving mode.
fecking disgusting but sadly what you'd expect, worse still the average Brit will endorse such behaviour.
The way we treat the down on their luck and disabled is a national disgrace as far as im concerned.
The sjambok was always effective in getting people back to work.
Clegg hasn't been able to stand since the summer of 2010.
Also. feck. The. fecking. Tories.
To show power in Britain is to show how cruel you can be. There really is no excuse to vote Tory other than being a total cnut which is sadly a good portion of the country.
On the positive side the Corbyn thing is in part a reaction against this type of cruelty, still the only rightful justice some of these tories deserve is to have the same fate as mussolini.
I know like @Smores said that sort of thing should hardly be a surprise at this point (and he's right), but I still find that thoroughly depressing. The cruelty of the government seeping through to management and the ones that suffer are obviously the worst off.
The problem is making money somewhat difficult or complicated to claim is a legitimate tactic in some regards in weening out the people who are entitled to something but don't actually need it and would only claim it if it were very simple and easy.
Marriage allowance for example goes under-claimed to the tune of hundreds of millions every year which is a win-win for the government - they've gotten the political gain from giving the money away without a lot of the money ever having to be paid (or more accurately not taking less money from the person).
Naturally there's a balance to be had though. Everyone would agree that standing outside the job centre with a bundle of £50 notes in an envelope giving them out to anyone who said they were jobless or disabled would be ridiculous because people aren't honest enough to only take an envelope if they truly need and are entitled to it.
Likewise most people would also agree the old system of essentially declaring yourself disabled and being entitled to the benefits that go with this was also unsustainable (a cleaner at our company 15 years ago resigned due to his realisation that he could declare himself entitled to disability benefit due to a perfectly manageable case of psoriasis. In 2012 he reapplied for his old job after having this rightfully cut. His wife was in the same position due to her morbid obesity).
I suppose it's all about where you set the bar. You either make it too easy to claim which ensures everyone entitled to the benefit gets it, but at the same time many people who aren't slip through the net and cost the exchequer billions. Or you end up making it too difficult and although only those that deserve it will get it, some vulnerable people who are deserving end up sadly slipping through the net.
I do however believe that as a country we have this lazy belief that the government is the silver bullet that should cover all bases. They should be spending more of education, more on healthcare, more on social care, more on infrastructure, more helping poorer nations, more on social security, more on pensions, more on police, more on defence; whilst at the same time already running a huge deficit as it is (and with tax receipts as a % of gdp at record levels "higher tax" is a false economy)
If we as a society feel the disabled or down on their luck aren't getting the support they need, we should donate our time and/or money to helping support them. If families and communities took a bit more communal responsibility rather than finger pointing I think the country would be a much better place, regardless of government.
That's never been the system anywhere.
Oh, get fecked. This is the kind of logic that's lead to almost 100000 people over the age of 85 being carers. It's ignorant cnutery of the highest order.
De facto if not de jure.
What nonsense. At the moment we have some kind of bizarre nimbyism whereby everyone wants everyone else to do more for every public service, whilst they themselves don't want to invest any more of their own time or money. You have poorer people who say "the rich should pay more", whist the middle and upper middle class are feeling more squeezed than ever before, feeling they're being bled dry.
If we want better services or better care, we need to be the people to get off our backsides and make a difference. Whether that's through charitable donations or giving up our time to help the causes we feel most strongly about.
It seems more and more people think idly blaming the government for all of life's problems is an easy ticket to absolving ones self of responsibility and bathing in a lake of morale superiority.
The government are terrible and have been for literally decades. Right wing leaning voters would probably say Thatcher's government were the last good government and left leaning voters would probably have to go back to the 1960's.
Anyone who believes the government is the solution to these problems is ignorantly burying their head in the sand.
You're acting as if this isn't already a thing. Plenty of people do help. There are tons of volunteers who help disabled/elderly/otherwise disadvantaged people. There are people with family members who need a lot of help, meaning they have to spend considerable portions of their lives acting as a carer.
Tons of people give to charity. In fact I'd say most people do to some extent, either in small amounts or a lot more generously.
Individuals themselves can only go so far though; a lot of people are too busy to volunteer or don't have enough money to give a lot to charity. And that's where you need the government to provide funding and to provide a support network. Charity and volunteering are all well and good but they can be unreliable and undependable (obviously) because there's not always going to be a guarantee people can/do give and help on the level needed.
I'd understand this reluctance for government spending in the face of having a deficit if it wasn't for the fact that the current government are quite happy to piss away money whenever it benefits them. May was perfectly willing to throw £1bn to the DUP in order to ensure she could form her government. The election itself (only ever intended to increase her majority) cost a fair bit of money. There are likely lots of savings, often even at a local level, which could be made with more efficient management but since incompetence is pretty much constant in politics a lot of money which could otherwise be saved gets wasted.
And if we need to fund services to a greater degree but can't afford to do so currently then the next option is to increase taxes. Which this current government often refuses to do because of its ideological opposition to doing so.
I completely agree, but expecting politicians to be competent, not waste money or not be self serving is ridiculously unrealistic.
I'd say given the last 30-50 years of political governance as a society it's baffling that anyone would expect even one of those qualities.
I take my hat off to the people who actively spend their time and money going over and above for causes they believe in; but all too often it's the people who complain the most who do the least.
Not sure that's the case. Often the ones you'll see complaining about current government policy will be activists/people involved in politics etc. Plenty of activists get involved in their community.
Naturally we're all often resigned to government incompetence, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't still call them out when they feck up, and it also doesn't mean that we shouldn't expect reasonably funded and well-run public services. Charity is all well and good, but it's not wholly reliable. People who expect the government to play their part in helping those who are disadvantaged aren't lazy. They're just demanding decent standards of their government.
Nope. There has always been a burden of proof on such claims. You're just flat out wrong.
Again. Get fecked. There's decades of data to show that inequality has been increasing in favour of the haves.
People already do things for others, they always have and always will. But an individuals impact will be close to zero on the grand scheme and the government needs to step in. And when their backs are really against the wall and they need to take care of a terminally ill cared one or a dying elderly family member they're met with contempt by shitbags for being a burden on the system instead of working.
And idly blaming those on the periphery is better? Because that's what you're doing.
Comparing countries to one another tells quite a different story. Those that invest in their people have better education, healthcare and standards of living.
We'll have to agree to disagree in terms of the first paragraph. The amount of people I meet who think they have a divine right to world leading public services (funded by someone else of course) and the second their lives are inconvenienced one iota are the first ones to blame government, the Tories or immigrants. These are often the people who say "I pay my taxes", despite them expecting 10x their taxes back in perfect services.
Expecting the government to play it's part is one thing. We all receive decent pensions when we retire, generally good healthcare when we fall ill, good education for our children, roads that are pretty well maintained, a good police and fire service, a good intelligence service, a good safety net for disabled or unemployed people, generally good subsidised housing local to the area people want to live. The list goes on.
The over the top and melodramatic rhetoric about any policy in this country being "fecking disgusting" is disingenuous at best and dangerous at worst, especially the veiled blame put at the foot of anyone voting for any political party. The government is doing what governments do - mediocre with the money at their disposal. We want anything better than mediocrity then it's our collective responsibility to improve things. Hoping for a knight in shining armour to ride in and save the day is the stuff of fairy tales.
Everyone gets more than they put back in. That's the whole point of a collective system.
And that's what the people who are complaining are doing. They're arguing for alternatives which they believe will be better than the current government. It's a bit ridiculous to ridicule people who are heavily critical of the current government, and yet then admit yourself that they're mediocre.
As for your first paragraph, the entire point of public services is that those who aren't as well-off will typically get more out of it because the richer pay more taxes due to the fact they have more money to give. Naturally some people will complain or take the piss, but it's far from the majority, and people still have a right to complain if they feel a public service they contribute towards is being run poorly or unfairly cut. Saying "the government are shit anyway" comes across as a convenient way to try and dodge any direct criticism of their political ideals and how they implement them. The entire point of politics is to look at what's working and what isn't, and to then try to improve things. Often it won't work, but I'll commend people who genuinely try, and people who call out poor government policy for what it is.
Sorry but the disabled especially have had enough taken away from them by their condition, any decent society provides without leaving them to beg for charity as you're suggesting. Thats no way to live.
Benefit fraud is such a tiny percentage around 1% if i recall. The argument that it's correct to punish the disabled to ensure no waste is absurd especially in light of goverment policy elsewhere.
That's obviously false.
I think there's a huge distinction between complaining and actively affecting change. I especially believe that blaming people who vote for a political party or deeming them part of any problem is ridiculous. The two main political parties have both been equally intrinsic in the system we currently enjoy or despise.
In terms of your second paragraph: of course the less well off should get more than they pay for. But in my view it should also be something that is also appreciated, rather than being seen as some divine right. These people have a right to criticise when things are sub-standard, but all to often there is no celebration of the fact that they are in the top few % of civilisation in terms of the services and protections they receive. People look at the 1% we aren't getting, rather than the 99% we are. This probably extends to general expectations as well, not just public services; I have people complain that they're struggling, whilst at the same time brandishing a brand new iPhone weeks after release, along with expensive new cars on finance.
I believe as a society we are seeing more and more services (as well as chattels) as part of our basic human rights, rather than the privileges that they would be seen as a few decades ago.
I'm not suggesting they beg for charity at all, quite the opposite. I'm saying society as a whole if they feel the system is letting some people slip through the net, should step up and lead by example. Disabled people wouldn't need to beg for anything if people took a bit more personal responsibility, rather than expecting a constantly underachieving government to overachieve.
I also wasn't talking about benefit fraud. As I said I knew someone who 10 years ago the system fully deemed as disabled because he regularly had itchy rashes across his body; because of this he resigned his position as he felt a 40 hour weekly job for barely any extra pay was a fool's game; his wife likewise because she was 22 stone. My mother in law likewise is a judge on a benefit appeal board and would attest to the fact that on the whole things are fairer, albeit with introductory teething problems and people unfortunately falling through the net. Part of the reason welfare spending has risen much slower than GDP in the last 7 years is due to inherent flaws in the old system that have rightfully been rectified. Of course as is always the case with government bringing in of a new system ends up being bodged and the people it's supposed to protect end up being the victims.
Again though when government inevitably bodges these things society should be there for people as well. It shouldn't be the case that people fall through the net and fall off a cliff. If welfare is a safety net then society should be a parachute if the net fails. It's far too important an issue for society to expect government to be a perfect, faultless silver bullet. Those that help provide this parachute I take my hat off to, but the majority who hold morale superiority by merely blaming government or voters of another party for all of the countries problems, whilst simultaneously doing very little to help society themselves are part of the problem in my view.